NAR v PPC1 [2013] NSWCCA 25

NAR v PPC1 [2013] NSWCCA 25

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant did not demonstrate an error of principle warranting interlocutory intervention. The District Court was asked to decide an application for access to documents treated as protected confidences and was not shown to have failed to consider the material. The complainant's permission to police to access and copy medical records did not satisfy the express consent requirements of s 300. The judge applied the correct substantial probative value test under s 299D, and the applicant's additional bases either misconceived the reasons or were not put below. The renewed constitutional challenge disclosed no sufficient basis to depart from KS v Veitch...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Interlocutory Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 5 F(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Application for Leave to Appeal Against District Court Refusal to Grant Access to Subpoenaed Documents
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
['sexual Assault Communications Privilege' 'subpoenas and Production of Protected Confidences' 'access to Subpoenaed Documents' 'substantial Probative Value' 'consent to Production of Privileged Material' 'kable Principle and Institutional Integrity of State Courts']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'constitutional Law'] ['sexual Assault Communications Privilege' 'subpoenas and Production of Protected Confidences' 'access to Subpoenaed Documents' 'substantial Probative Value' 'consent to Production of Privileged Material' 'kable Principle and Institutional Integrity of State Courts']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Interlocutory Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 5 F(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Application for Leave to Appeal Against District Court Refusal to Grant Access to Subpoenaed Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the District Court's refusal to allow access to subpoenaed documents said to record protected confidences." 'Whether the District Court erred by not inspecting the subpoenaed material to determine whether it recorded protected confidences.' "Whether the complainant's statement giving police permission to access and copy medical records amounted to consent under s 300 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986." 'Whether the subpoenaed material had substantial probative value for the purposes of s 299D(1).' 'Whether Chapter 6, Part 5, Division 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, including ss 298 and 299D, was constitutionally invalid as impairing the institutional integrity of State courts.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant did not demonstrate an error of principle warranting interlocutory intervention. The District Court was asked to decide an application for access to documents treated as protected confidences and was not shown to have failed to consider the material. The complainant's permission to police to access and copy medical records did not satisfy the express consent requirements of s 300. The judge applied the correct substantial probative value test under s 299D, and the applicant's additional bases either misconceived the reasons or were not put below. The renewed constitutional challenge disclosed no sufficient basis to depart from KS v Veitch...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • ['Application for leave to appeal refused']